EDITORIAL: A free hand on pot? Don’t believe it

President Trump says he’s supportive of efforts to protect state-level legalizations of marijuana from federal prohibitions.

That, at least, is what a Colorado senator says he was told by Trump. The president, of course, had reason to offer up such a pledge, regardless of how insincere it may be; that senator, Republican Cory Gardner, was holding up some of Trump’s nominations for the Justice Department. So Trump exchanged his assurances about legal pot for an agreement from Gardner to release those appointments.

But is anyone remotely confident that Trump will stick to such a pledge? We certainly know by now that Trump’s word doesn’t mean much; a change in position on any subject is just a random tweet away.

Under President Obama, it was understood that the federal government wouldn’t meddle in state pot laws. Trump, however, seemingly wants to overturn every Obama act and oppose every Obama viewpoint, just on principle. Attorney General Jeff Sessions had made it clear in the past that the feds would start cracking down and enforce the federal pot laws, raising many questions about what would happen in states where marijuana has already been legalized, or where legalization is being considered, like New Jersey.

So why the apparent reversal? If Trump just wanted to free up those judicial appointments, he would have promised most anything; it doesn’t mean he has to deliver. Gardner didn’t say Trump would steer clear of state laws; the president just suggested he could back a congressional solution. But Trump could always claim he doesn’t like the particular solution offered. The Trump camp says this reflects the president’s support of states’ rights — but we also know that support would go directly out the window for an issue important to Trump. It may just be that Trump doesn’t care much about pot laws either way, and so he’s willing to drop any crackdown ideas.

Either way, this translates into encouraging news on some level for legalization advocates.

New Jersey appeared to be in line as the next state to embrace recreational marijuana; Gov. Phil Murphy is a big fan of legalization, and has incorporated some anticipated related revenue in his budget plan. But the fast track has been slowed by rising concerns among many lawmakers about social implications and impaired-driving enforcement, among other issues. That hesitancy has prompted discussions about potentially settling for decriminalization that would reduce penalties for possession of small amounts.

New Jersey is also moving toward greatly expanding its medicinal marijuana program, which would continue even if pot is fully legalized. Murphy wants to broaden access in several ways, including additions to the list of eligible conditions and making it easier for doctors to write prescriptions.

But if Trump’s comments are to be trusted, that would ease at least one disincentive toward legalization. But given the president’s desire to punish New Jersey as much as possible, can we really believe that federal pot prohibitions wouldn’t be a problem here?